Elizabeth Anscombe argues that pacifism is an indefensible position:
it simply does not take account of the simple fact that society without
coercive power is generally impossible. This is not to say that war
is not generally a great evil, principally because it tends to lead to
the morally indefensible killing of the innocent. (The principle of
double effect offers help in distinguishing when killing the innocent
is, and when it is not, murder.) Pacifism, she adds, tends to have a
morally pernicious effect: by ignoring the distinction between shedding
any blood and shedding innocent blood it tends to lead to an "anything
goes" position once war is initiated. One is, furthermore, misguided
if one believes that Christianity entails pacifism; such a position sees
Christianity not, as in truth it is, a severe and practicable religion,
but rather as a beautifully ideal and impracticable one.

—R.C.

The Use of Violence by Rulers

Since there are always thieves and frauds and men who commit
violent attacks on their neighbours and murderers, and since without
law backed by adequate force there are usually gangs of bandits; and
since there are in most places laws administered by people who
command violence to enforce the laws against lawbreakers; the question
arises: what is a just attitude to this exercise of violent coercive
power on the part of rulers and their subordinate officers?

Two attitudes are possible: one, that the world is an absolute jungle
and that the exercise of coercive power by rulers is only a manifestation
of this; and the other, that it is both necessary and right that there

Print this page

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary
to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution.
We are sorry for any inconvenience.